Started By
Message
re: ScAUbinsky: Past Time for Bond and Bell to put up or shut up
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:30 pm to WDE24
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:30 pm to WDE24
quote:
Still, the NCAA pres isn't going to continuously talk about the lack of evidence of Cam's knowledge if he knows Bond and Bell have a tape proving otherwise.
Cam's eligibilty is separate and apart from the other investigation. He was commenting on the re-instatement. AU wouldn't have provided a tape, so it wouldn't have been taken into consideration concerning his eligibility. So he says what he says. Do you have any other comments from him that do not relate to reinstatement?
This post was edited on 2/28/11 at 2:32 pm
0
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:31 pm to Alahunter
quote:
My point is that the NCAA clearly didn't do a proper investigation before and relied heavily on Auburn's assumption of innocence. That they reinstated a player, that was still under investigation is contrary to every decision they've ever made concerning eligibility.
The NCAA did a thorough investigation of Newton. If he got paid it was way off the books because the NCAA, Auburn, and the SEC looked at EVERYTHING. Auburn made this assumption due to the fact there was no evidence that Newton knew anything. If this is the same old tape then it is merely a marketing ploy where someone is wanting a pay day and to keep Auburn and Newton in the press. If this is new then you have to wonder why it wasn't turned over to the NCAA or SEC when asked for late last summer.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:31 pm to Alahunter
quote:I don't. I just believe Emmert is smart enough not to say the NCAA has no proof Cam had knowledge if there are third parties holding tapes that the NCAA has heard that prove otherwise.
Why do you believe they are beyond reproach and covering their own asses when they've done something wrong as well?
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:34 pm to WDE24
quote:
Do you believe Emmert would make the statements he has made, including the one quoted above, if the NCAA had listened to tapes proving Cam's knowledge prior to the reinstatement decision?
There is no trickery in that question. It's a straight forward yes or no question that goes directly to the issue of if the NCAA had heard the tapes prior to the decision being made. Just answer it instead of being concerned with losing an e-debate.
It's based on a hypothetical at this point. Nobody knows if they were played at this time, or what was on them if they were. What I do know to be fact, is that he was wrong on how the reinstatement works and he did make that statement after he and the NCAA were getting hammered by the media. What I also know, is that unless they broke their own rules, Auburn gave the only information for Cam's reinstatement and it was done quicker than any case in the history of the NCAA.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:37 pm to rangers911
quote:
The NCAA did a thorough investigation of Newton. If he got paid it was way off the books because the NCAA, Auburn, and the SEC looked at EVERYTHING
Again, this has nothing to do with reinstatement. That is done based on what information Auburn provides to the committee, and only that information. Seeing that the reinstatement was done in less than 24 hrs and there was no investigation by the committee, as is done in every other case that it's had, it doesn't pass the smell test. Again, I ask for just one case in the entire history of the NCAA that such a fast decision was made before this.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:37 pm to WDE24
quote:
I just believe Emmert is smart enough not to say the NCAA has no proof Cam had knowledge if there are third parties holding tapes that the NCAA has heard that prove otherwise.
Again, sometimes the procedural things bite you in the arse. Cam's reinstatement was based on what was provided by AU. AU did not provide a tape. NCAA pres. holds a meeting where he mentions that the committee on eligibilty did a great job. What is not mentioned is that only AU stuff was looked at...
Posted on 2/28/11 at 2:59 pm to Tds & Beer
quote:
Why couldn't they have heard the tapes later though. Why does it have to be that they heard before they ruled him eligible? Did I miss that it was supposedly before that?
They could have heard the tapes later. I believe it was Bell that said his phone had been damaged by water, but he had text messages on the phone. It is very possible that text messaged from the damaged phone could have bee retrieved "after" the NCAA had already ruled Cam eligible to play.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 3:08 pm to Alahunter
quote:Why do you have such a hard time answering a straight forward hypothetical? It's the hypothetical that the OP believes is true and that I was refuting.
It's based on a hypothetical at this point.
Again, I was simply making 1 point, that you obviously want to ignore.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 3:09 pm to diddydirtyAubie
I didn't read the article, but I definitely agree with the premise in the title.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 3:11 pm to WDE24
quote:
straight forward hypothetical?
because there's no such thing as a straight forward hypothetical.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 3:13 pm to Alahunter
quote:I think your avoidance of the question is answer enough.
because there's no such thing as a straight forward hypothetical.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 3:17 pm to WDE24
NB4 I-59 tiger slams our fans for calling scarbinsky out,when he really is the only one that doesn't kiss Sabans arse...
Posted on 2/28/11 at 3:22 pm to WDE24
I have made my arguments pretty clear. When it gets to hypotheticals, I'll leave those to ditty and auzach and the likes. You're a better debater than to fall into that category. 
eta- gotta run awhile.
eta- gotta run awhile.
This post was edited on 2/28/11 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 2/28/11 at 3:25 pm to diddydirtyAubie
I don't think Cam is innocent in this ordeal, however...
I can actually see this clown, Bond, claiming that the tapes got stolen. He doesn't have shite. He just wants $$$. I may be wrong, but I'll be willing to bet I'm not.
I can actually see this clown, Bond, claiming that the tapes got stolen. He doesn't have shite. He just wants $$$. I may be wrong, but I'll be willing to bet I'm not.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 3:43 pm to WDE24
Since Alahunter didn't give you an answer to your liking...I'll give it a shot.
No.
However, this question isn't germane as the "reinstatement decision" was totally based upon what AU provided. It goes without saying that they didn't provide a tape. So, in summation, you are chasing a black swan.
quote:
Simple question: Do you believe Emmert would make the statements he has made, including the one quoted above, if the NCAA had listened to tapes proving Cam's knowledge prior to the reinstatement decision?
No.
However, this question isn't germane as the "reinstatement decision" was totally based upon what AU provided. It goes without saying that they didn't provide a tape. So, in summation, you are chasing a black swan.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 4:50 pm to diddydirtyAubie
I agree the two need to put up or shut up, but to say that they are bad people if they sell the tapes is laughable. They have valuable information that they have every right to profit from if they wish. Skarbinsky is a supposed provider of information to the public. I guess he should not be allowed to draw a salary for doing this either.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 4:52 pm to NBamaAlum
quote:
you are chasing a black swan.
I'm ok with that.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 4:59 pm to WDE24
When I wrote that, I had more of the Donald Rumsfeld/Nassim Taleb "black swan" in mind...but that one is better.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 5:02 pm to Aman
quote:
Ask yourself why have the tapes not been played?
"Un-named confidential sources" close to the case believe that Bond was using the tapes to force Chizit to release Cam to play for MSU in 2012 and then Cam betrayed the "family unit" didnt stay in school and decided to go to the draft thus blowing up the MSU grand plan for a NC shot.
Posted on 2/28/11 at 5:06 pm to Crow Pie
at anyone that believes that. Or, at least at Bond, if he thought that was even possible. 
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News